(July 21, 2012 at 6:56 am)catfish Wrote:

(July 21, 2012 at 6:45 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Yes, because it is no longer completely true.

"Yes" to what, the transcription example?

Yes....

Since it contains a lie it is no longer completely true, therefore fallible.

Quote:I'm afraid "freethinker" is a misnomer...

Y'all say and do the same things. Get out of your box and learn what it means to be free > Me

So says the man who was whining about "veiled insults" directed at him. Either stay up on the pedestal or stoop down below common ground, make up your mind.

I always read that particular passage as basically stating that there will be people who try to say that the bible if infallible and that they're speakers of falsehoods. It is an argument for biblical infallibility, and supposedly the crux for it.

Unfortunately, the bible betrays its man-made origins far too many times. This claim was made to try to suck-punch-uppercut the possibility of non-believers being taken seriously before they could ever come to be, a sort of "JUST AS PLANNED!" moment by the writer, if you will, which betrays the arrogance of the writers of the bible...which betrays its man-made origins. Reason being that the bible is full of contradictions, shifts, and outright falsehoods. You can claim it as a "test" all you want, which is stupid because as I recall, the son of god, this hippie carpenter socialist dude named Jesus came along and said that all of humanity's sins would die with him, and that accepting Jesus as your lord and savior meant that you fully embraced his sacrifice as the exorcision of your sins. "Testing" the creations who already accepted the ultimate, agonizing sacrifice of his only son is completely fucking pointless because they've already PASSED the only fucking test that supposedly matters; accepting the act of sacrifice in their name for their sins. Basically what you're saying is that god showed his eternal love for his creations that he let his own son be sacrificed in their name so that they would all never feel evil, and THEN TURNED RIGHT THE FUCK AROUND and started tempting them towards sin and corruption and eternal damnation...to what fucking purpose?! If all men are equal in god's eyes as the bible claims repeatedly, then why the fuck is he suddenly doing this whole "levels of faith" bullshit?? What, do you get into heaven's VIP lounge if you pass all the extraneous tests, where instead of just chilling on clouds with harp-playing angels, you instead are surrounded by an entire squad of big-breasted naked angel women who will drape themselves all over you and pleasure you for all time? Or do you get to sit a little closer to the glowing ball of godly-goodness that just sits there in the center of heaven? If so, then the bible is lying AGAIN because NOT all men are equal; they're divided and rewarded in varying ergo unequal measures according to some immeasurable thing like blind belief! What is the payoff?? Winning dick-measuring bets with Satan?? How loving a god; he gambles with the immortal souls of his creations for his own right to be smug with his eternal enemy. So since NONE of this shit actually makes any logical sense we can simply just apply Occam's Razor and cut to the simple conclusion that the bible is fallible, the verses quoted are just an attempt by the mortal, barely-literate writer to basically "inb4 atheism/science/freethinking," and therefore none of the shit is really worth believing anyway.

(July 21, 2012 at 6:59 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Yes....

Since it contains a lie it is no longer completely true, therefore fallible.

So all court records are false.... I got it...

Also I only just barely manage to snort back a laugh when you mention that your beliefs are "personal and unique." I thought Christianity was supposed to be universal? Yet for being the universal religion, it sure seems to have a whole metric fuckton of ways of interpreting it, and none of the hundreds of thousands of discordant beliefs seem to be able to come to conclusion as to who is right.

(July 21, 2012 at 7:28 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: ...You can claim it as a "test" all you want, which is stupid because as I recall, the son of god, this hippie carpenter socialist dude named Jesus came along and said that all of humanity's sins would die with him, and that accepting Jesus as your lord and savior meant that you fully embraced his sacrifice as the exorcision of your sins.

And this is what I mean by "freethinker" being a misnomer.

Research what Jesus' name really is, then find out what the litteral interpretation of that name means...

What you "think" seems to be what someone else told you.
Jesus ain't no "savior"

Isaiah 43:11
King James Version (KJV)

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour.

(July 21, 2012 at 5:48 am)catfish Wrote: If I lie and misrepresent what was in a German scientist's book, does that make the scientist fallible?

But anyways, the OP was quite clear on the question, I already know the answer...

Sure, if the scientist is in on it.

(July 21, 2012 at 5:48 am)catfish Wrote: Alrighty...

Let me put this another way...

A person transcribes all of the testimony in a court case.

If one witness lies, does that make the transcription fallible?

---

What you fail to completely understand is that neither the German scientist's book nor the transcript have ever been claimed to be infallible. Your bible does. Which means both that nobody lied and everything was transcribed correctly.

(July 21, 2012 at 5:48 am)catfish Wrote: I'm afraid "freethinker" is a misnomer...

Y'all say and do the same things. Get out of your box and learn what it means to be free > Me

Freethinking does not mean that our thinking is free from reason and logic, but free from dogma. It is because it is bound by the "box" of rationality that we all come to the same conclusions. And that is one box we prefer to remain in.

---

(July 21, 2012 at 7:33 am)catfish Wrote:

(July 21, 2012 at 6:59 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Yes....

Since it contains a lie it is no longer completely true, therefore fallible.

So all court records are false.... I got it...

Do you understand the distinction between fallible and false?

(July 21, 2012 at 8:31 am)genkaus Wrote:

(July 21, 2012 at 7:33 am)catfish Wrote: So all court records are false.... I got it...

Do you understand the distinction between fallible and false?

Apparently not

(July 21, 2012 at 8:31 am)genkaus Wrote: What you fail to completely understand is that neither the German scientist's book nor the transcript have ever been claimed to be infallible. Your bible does. Which means both that nobody lied and everything was transcribed correctly.

You claim that the Bible makes the claim of infallilbilty. That's what I want to see proof of. Now the OP is actually being addressed...

Show your work, k?

(July 21, 2012 at 8:47 am)catfish Wrote: You claim that the Bible makes the claim of infallilbilty. That's what I want to see proof of. Now the OP is actually being addressed...

Show your work, k?

Aren't you the one who made that claim? Since you argued that if it predicts its own errors and lies then it is infallible.

"Does anyone have one reason that supports infallibilty?"

Ye I want people to do what I tell them, believe what I say. If I say something and it is in conflict with what they know they need to reconsider what they know.